McBride Speaks, In Person And In Print 782
Phil Windley writes "Darl McBride gave the keynote at CDXPO this evening and held a press conference afterwards. I've posted my summary of his talk and the press conference on my weblog. In his talk, Darl seemed to be saying "Don't hate me. I'm only doing what I had to do."" On the other hand, in this interesting interview with CRN, McBride comes one whisker from likening Linux users to drug users, renews threats to sue end users, and says "all the big guys" are out to get SCO.
Always Wondered (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting note at the end of the interview (Score:5, Interesting)
McBride: The interesting scenario is, do you go after an HP customer or an IBM customer? That's what David is the master of. That's his final decision
So, if I am understanding this, the lawer is in charge.
Anybody else shocked?
I used to work for SCO, in a past life (Score:5, Interesting)
My impressions (Score:5, Interesting)
And, most importantly, not having one central company or organization claiming total control over the OS. One of the things I love about Free Software, especially for the Operating System is that I think it is *crucial* for there to be a viable, widely used Free-as-in-speech OS Platform for everyone in the world to be able to use without it being leveraged to one company's or government's or whatever advantage. A true 'level playing field.'
So, SCO doesn't get it. Darl wants everyone to stop 'crucifying' him and SCO for doing what they "have to" in order to survive and leverage the investment they made in Unix. Everyone is picking on him, especially IBM who are big bullies (note this isn't my opinion - I'm just summarizing McBride). Oh, also SCO likes Open Source and Linux - we aren't out to destroy Linux and Open Source - we just want $700 dollars for every CPU that runs Linux commercially. Don't hate us, we want to co-exist peacefully with Open Source.
Oh, and the best part - the GPL is dead - Open Source isn't dead, just the GPL because it isn't friendly enough to business according to Darl. And, Free (as in beer) linux is dead (nevermind Debian and other non-commercial distros).
Lastly, in the world of Darl McBride, the BSD's don't exist. He didn't mention them ONCE in the presentation. And there were a couple times (Unix History discussion, as well as a few other places) where it would have probably been quite appropriate to mention them. Along those lines, SCO == UNIX, and we own the copyright to ALL UNIX (again what about the BSD's?).
Oh he did clarify that AIX, HP/UX, et al are 'owned' by the respective companies, but that SCO 'controls' all of them as the root of the unix tree.
I dunno. I really at this point just wish SCO would put up or shut up. Show definitely that there is wide-spread infringement instead of just throwing out "We have STRONG IP claims" (Take our word for it). Basically, this issue needs to go to court and be resolved.
Speaking of which, here's the SCO lawsuit scheme: IBM is not a copyright infringment case - it's breach of contract. But if people who use Linux don't buy Unix Licenses, we will sue them for copyright infringement. (Which is basically what they've been saying all along - no surprise there).
So what I hear, when I hear McBride make that statement is IBM probably has the resources and expertise to discredit our copyright infringment claims - so we are going to go after small fish who (we hope) can't reasonably defend against the infringement claims, and gradually build precedent one case at a time and then go after the big companies when we have a few cases behind us that gave us favorable findings.
Re:Here's the Meat of the Story... (Score:1, Interesting)
To Quote Sontag (Score:5, Interesting)
In that one example, copyrighted code had been misappropriated and there's substantial benefit out there that has still not been rectified. There are other literal copyright infringements that we have not publicly provided, we'll save those for court. "
Linus has always stated that we'll rip everything out if the code was shown. McBride has even mentioned that in interviews and said something like "Hey, that's great! We want that to happen, too."
Bank robbers? Substantial benefit? The truth is that they would rather keep the IP in there and keep the linux kernel, charging us for each CPU.
The only problem is this: What would keep anyone from forking the kernel at the point where all "infringing code" had been ripped out. Sure, the tree would be on fire, but I doubt it would take TOO long for some seriously pissed off coders to re-write the missing items.
I can't wait to watch the flamage in court.
Re:Always Wondered (Score:5, Interesting)
You also pointed out that he makes a great deal of money. I'm sure that helps a lot.
Why doesn't anyone ask the unanswerable question? (Score:5, Interesting)
What can SCO possibly answer, while maintaining that the GPL is illegitimate?
Re:McBride's Funniest Quips! (Score:3, Interesting)
i forgot the numbers(they've been posted to sco articles quite frequently).
do they match up even nearly with 1million=20%?
his an asshat of course, i wonder if he could answer how many lines of code sco claims to have ownership of are used in a compile of a kernel meant for normal x86 desktop? zero?
Clueless! (Score:5, Interesting)
It's the cost of "playing the game" of business...sitting around board tables, jet setting to last-minute meetings--it's a drug of "power".
Guys like him start out "at the bottom" in the old boys network. They typically go from newbie to boss in a short time...he's probably never actually researched ANYTHING to do with copyright or patent on his OWN...delegating doesn't count. Guys like him deal in what they WANT...not what's REAL. I find executives as a class get a surprising amount of info from word-of-mouth, Forbes [& such], and CNN...far more often than say..googling for a copy of the LAW, or court cases/common practice to support their claims.
I find they're like the kids in school that don't know the game really well, but can argue the rules 'till everyone is bored and gives up.
What if it's not sold? (Score:5, Interesting)
So, Darl, faced with a product that is very often free to hobbyists or companies willing to support themselves internally is going to gain revenue from this how? If I never touch anything to do with Caldera Systems, the only way that they're going to even know that I have my copies of Linux would be to stage a BSA-style raid on my home or business, count the machines, audit the software, and the like.
This does scare me. Not in the sense that I think that Darl and his other brother Darl will win, but that if they were to somehow squeak by with a court victory, establish precedent, and continue winning court victories that somehow gave them rights to that which they shouldn't otherwise, what's to stop them from being even more asinine?
I have no love for the company whose operating system has the most market share, but at various times, when working for computer companies that sold product, if something were amiss, an actually friendly representative would come in and identify himself as a rep, tell us how the product distribution for the product (usually the OS) worked (like, minimum pricing put into the wholesale distribution), cite our ad if the price were lower than the initial wholesale price, and if something were amiss, he'd inspect the product. A couple of times we had forged copies, which was noticeable on the booklets on further inspection, and he traded us all of the faulty software for good copies, all that he wanted to know was where we got them. No fuss, no muss, no lawyers talking, even for software that would be fairly easy to prove as illegitimate if it came down to it.
Compare this to Caldera in their approach. They're huffing and puffing about $600+ licencing fees for the OS. Everone who bends and pays encourages them to seek out everyone else that has "product", regardless of origin. They'll be querying webservers, looking at NAT and Masquerade data that they find, and making a big pain out of themselves. They'll call the FBI to attempt to root out the "piracy" of what they "own" in BSA-style raids. They'll make a mockery of the criminal justice system the same as they have the civil system.
Yes, I'm being extremely paranoid, but a little paranoia now is better than a terrible situation later, especially if ways to combat this can be found.
Re:To Quote Sontag (Score:3, Interesting)
This little tidbit is also interesting from the article that is linked:
Look at it from SCO's perspective, SCO OpenServer costs a lot to maintain, and adding features and drivers is expensive. The customer base is dwindling, so why not become a lawsuit company, and seize control over Linux?He also brags a lot about how he's improved shareholder value and this and that. However, what good is shareholder "value" when the company is not sustainable? Sure the shareholders are richer right now, but unless SCO becomes a sustainable company, they're really just burning shareholder cash.
Sontag admits SCO isn't helping (Score:3, Interesting)
Sontag admits that SCO is not releasing the information required to rectify the situation and, if SCO shows which code might be misappropriated, Linux leaders will remove the offending code.
But there are over one million lines of code that we have identified that are derivative works by IBM and Sequent that have been contributed into Linux that we have identified and there's been no effort by Linux leaders to start acting and rectify that situation.
But Sontag also claims Linux leaders aren't trying to rectify the situation... Sigh.
Re:What if it's not sold? (Score:2, Interesting)
Really, the basic interpretation of IBM's UNIX contract is unclear, which means that SCO still has a real shot at this.
So you tell the guy to consume some "feel good" propaganda and then pat him on the butt and reminding him that IBM is big and has lots of muscles. Have some soma, it will be alright.
Any Linux user that isn't a little paranoid about this thing is delusional or in denial. And that's exactly why there's so many virulent posts on the topic. You should be (at least a little) worried, and adults admit to that.
what if SCO had been smarter? (Score:2, Interesting)
SCO sees it's dying but knows it has IP rights in some of its stuff. Because the kernel code is open source, it invests the time and resources of an unscrupulous individual or two to inject infringing code into the kernel. A year later, it announces the travesty of justice it has just discovered, and sues.
Now imagine a company desperate to get rid of Linux and with plenty of time, deep pockets, and a history of low dealing gets a similar idea. We'll call them, for fun, Microsoft.
I know it would be fraudulent and criminal and I'm not suggesting it's about to happen or even that MS would do that, just that the open source model makes it easier for someone to pull a stunt like that.
ps: I know you can't just submit code and magically it's there in the kernel. I'm talking about either deliberate long term malfeasance or a rogue employee who gets a 'bright' idea and hatches a longish term plan.
pps: I know this could easily happen (and has happened) with proprietary source companies as well .. my point is it would be easier w/ open source, that's all.
ppps: I don't think it's a particularly brilliant insight .. just throwing it out there...
Re:Why doesn't anyone ask the unanswerable questio (Score:5, Interesting)
The original copyright point raised by CoughDropAddict holds. The GPL is a set of rules that the author of a copyrighted work applies to other people who wish to use that work. If SCO doesn't agree to those rules, standard copyright laws apply - meaning SCO can NOT legally sell the product. It's not their IP.
They can sell Samba. They can diss the GPL. They can't do both.
Re:I'm not sure this is so funny (Score:0, Interesting)
Avoid SCO articles -- save sanity (Score:3, Interesting)
Either way -- I think I'm going to skip these SCO articles from now on. CRN's interview with McBride was just so frustrating to read -- that guy is such a snake and such a master of spin, it pisses me off to no end, and there's not a thing I can do about it. If this case were going to be resolved anytime soon, I'd stick around to cheer, but as it is, I have no desire to sit around interminably stewing in bile.
What's the practical approach to this?
What can a regular, IANAL geek do?
Donate to the FSF, since the GPL's getting involved? Somehow I don't think IBM needs my donation to its legal fund. Write letters to editors?
The big guys? (Score:3, Interesting)
FYI, Darl, the big guys aren't out to get you anymore than I am out to get a mosquito that keeps buzzing around my head. You keep pissing them off and eventually they will want to swat you
Now the little guys, all of us linux users and many slashdotters alike whom you are pissing off a great deal: we'd definately like to see you suffer a painful and humiliating spiral down the corporate toilet. But the big guys have a bigger flyswatter, so you probably notice it coming a lot sooner...
Re:Interesting note at the end of the interview (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What if it's not sold? (Score:4, Interesting)
The information available about the IBM contract is pretty clear, unless you accept SCO's redefinition of the word 'derived'. I really don't think they'll get away with this.
The reason regular people don't need to be worried, however, is that even if IBM were to somehow lose, that doesn't effect Linux. It's a contract dispute between IBM and SCO. If there were really copyright issues involved SCO would have produced the evidence by now.
Re:Why does he hate himself? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, but he doesn't have to destroy Linux in the process. If SCO has been wronged then SCO will be compensated. But Darl is doing his level best to ruin everything good about Linux in his attempt to make money.
Oh yeah, he says he doesn't want to "destroy" Linux. He's lying. In the CRN interview he states without ambiguity that he wants SCO to be paid for every installation of Linux. He publicly defames the GPL. He attacks the development process. He attacks the developers! He makes critical but not constructive statements about Free Software.
But the worst act of all. The most despicable and heinous act. Darl refuses to help the Linux developers remove the alleged copied code. Darl seems content to allow the alleged infringements to continue in perpetuity so as to line his own pockets. Linux will be destroyed by that act alone. Darl doesn't give a fuck about that. It's his money, right? Linux is his bitch and he can charge whatever he damn well likes. Bad luck to all the millions of developers who poured their heart and soul into creating a community owned project. It's his! He gets to charge $699 for it. Nobody else. Just him!
These are immoral acts. He has every right to defend SCO's property. He has every right to get compensation for use of SCO's property. He has every right to sue IBM so a court can decide the truth of that matter. But he's a fucking prick in the way he's going about it.
I hope he goes to prison.
Re:Interesting note at the end of the interview (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, but there is "bottom line" and there is "BOTTOM LINE". McBride has sacrificed long term corporate viability for the possibility of a lottery-type payoff (at pretty much the same odds).
I don't think he was counting on IBM and the open-souce folks being utterly unwilling to settle, and able to account for every line of code as well as being able to show its history - in some cases right back to the founders of Unix and before. In other words - he doesn't understand open-source in the slightest.
And since SCO has so thoroughly blotted it's copybook with the Linux/Unix community, when SCO loses this fight THEY. ARE. HISTORY. Their revenue stream will vanish like a soap bubble and their stock go into negative values.
That is the bottom line - and it, too, is actionable by shareholders.
I suspect that Boies and Co. think so too. Did you notice - they aren't working on contingency. They want money up front, now. If they truly believed in their cause I would think that they would prefer to wait for the big payoff.
Re:Interesting note at the end of the interview (Score:1, Interesting)
This argument boils down to "If Darl doesn't do it, somebody else will". That's more of a excuse than a valid reason.
Regardless, I think its too bad when not only do people like Darl get to act against the public interest, but its okay to explain it away as "acting in the shareholder's best interest". How far does that requirement go?
Re:I'm not sure this is so funny (Score:1, Interesting)
Analysis
Those who want software to be free - FSF, GNU/Linux, FreeBSD, basically the whole Open Source Movement
Those who support proprietary software - Microsoft, Apple
So this puts SCO as the bellwether (hah) between Microsoft and Open Source... Which one is SCO going after legally? Open Source... So SCO really isn't in the middle, SCO is in bed with Microsoft. Darl doesn't want Linux to be free anymore, he wants SCO to be able to get a percentage of the sale. Fine, I downloaded Knoppix for free, 10% of nothing is still nothing Darl.
He says removing the code won't fix the transgression. He's out to kill the GPL, but they use the GPL to give them the ability to include Samba in their OpenServer software.'
This guy is nothing by a Microsoft Toadie in my opinion, since the financial backing for their legal assistance has come from Licensing in which Microsoft is one of two companies that purchased licenses from SCO.
"There's no free lunch or free Linux. The value proposition of Linux is UNIX for free. Free models such as free music, free Internet, free bandwidth, and free love haven't worked."
Free software encourages innovation, applications get developed and ideas get created which a commercial firm would never give their employees time to even explore. Free internet, and bandwidth were commercial ventures, based on advertising revenue, and they failed because they were commercial ventures. Free music hasn't been tried by the music industry, except by the Grateful Dead and they'll tell you how successful it has made them. Maybe this is a snipe at Michael Robertson and Lindows, but Lindows sold out to SCO and is in no danger of being sued for distributing their version of Debian/KDE. Free software is making leaps and bounds, Open Office and GNU/Linux has the potential to free School Districts, Governments (Local and Federal) from the Microsoft Tyrant and save taxpayers money, money that can be given back or be used to give kids a better education, better healthcare for the elderly, better roads, etc...
Darl though thinks GNU/Linux is akin to a communist movement, so obviously those benefits which assist the general public might be too socialist for his taste as well.
He says there will be lost jobs, likely because countries like Brazil will not need to outsource projects to the US or other countries when they switch to to GNU/Linux, China won't have to pay licensing fees for DVD players or to Microsoft for their OS'es and software, etc... Microsoft will have to lay off developers/employees since their business will decrease worldwide as Microsoft products get dumped in favor of Open Source solutions. Nevermind that the money saved will likely be deployed in other ways, bolstering those countries social programs, and from small businesses which will be able to grow their capacity quicker since they haven't been able to pay Microsoft licensing fees.
Darl's also afraid Walgreens will replace their 386's running Unix for their registers and store computers with something more modern, just as other retailers will as GNU/Linux based solutions become available. GNU/Linux can save a lot of people, governments, and institutions money.
BTW. Word tries to correct FreeBSD as Freebees
Where are the brave OSS guys now? (Score:3, Interesting)
After reading his waffling and calming myself down a bit, I realise some things, which follow:
1.Every time a question is posed about SCO's products he comes out with very obvious marketing speak and hubris about how exited SCO resellers are and about the supposed 2 million servers (do cash registers count as servers?) running SCO warez. This should be blindly obvious. It would be marketing suicide and almost unheard of for any CEO to admit that the SEC filings were in any way truthful about the true state of the company. Why hasn't anyone thought to ask him about the SEC filings his own company made????
2.SCO's case, as far as I can tell from the respective IBM and SCO court filings, is on weak ground at best. SCO has yet to answer IBM's request on a line for line clarification of exactly which files are infringing SysV R4 copyright. They have claimed in their answer to IBM that some 531 files are infringing, with some 30'000 lines. This is not anywhere near the "half a million lines" that he talks about in public. But he hasn't specified any lines directly. Why???????????
3.SCO distributed Linux for a long time after they had started their legal proceedings, and I'm damn sure this is going to have an effect on the case. Why isn't this point raised in press interviews???
4.SCO's public accusations and threats are almost certainly going to be taken into account in the case. One must note that McBride has not once talked specifically about any company that he will threaten with the $699/$1399 charge. This is obviously because once he does that, he faces being sued by that company for extortion. Almost all of SCO's public speech is stock value influencing bluff. And no one thought to ask him about a specific company???
5. McFuck finally mentioned that BSD is in the clear, but in the same sentence mentions that BSD code is in Linux without the copyright information, yet makes no mention about SCO products using the same code. And no one thought to ask????
6. McBrat says that Samba is not infringing anything, so SCO can use it. Nice of him isn't it? It fits in with his strategy of trying to weaken the GPL by appealing to marketing greed that is so fucking rampant on Wall Street. He wants it "friendlier" to business. It should be obvious that he wants to save his arse for distributing stuff under the GPL for so long, and the fact that he faces copyright infringement of his own even if the GPL is invalid.
I realise that many prominent GPL contributors don't want to frighten off businesses by suing SCO for copyright infringement or breach of contract, including Linus. Yet everyone who has been accused publicly of something by SCO has gotten involved whether they wanted it or not. And this irritates me. Why do Linus and Co not defend themselves? Why do they not start legal action against SCO? Why is it that almost no one from the OSS crowd ever tries to speak to standard industry rags and make decent legal points about SCO? I get so fricking mad when Linus does his dumb hippy free love act in the press interviews until he finally gets subpoenaed by SCO's team of legal drug dealers. Why the fuck does no one stand up in public for fuck sake?
Sorry for the rant, but this whole SCO thing is so publicly damaging for the GPL and Linux, and the fact way the media and the stock markets work is that one is automatically guilty when one makes no good comment.
Re:Godwin's Law (Score:1, Interesting)
Not the "Always Wondered" thread. I've had the same debate with a coworker about Bill Gates. Does he believe his clearly false statements are true?
I see this in all kinds of leaders and I've never been able to find the answer.
Re:Interesting note at the end of the interview (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not so sure. IBM has a long-standing tradition of -not- settling cases like this one, where their business model is being attacked. Quite correctly, they see their reputation and future plans as being worth much more than settling, which in the public eye is often times an admission of guilt.
As far as the Open Source community goes, there is no "settle" at stake - we haven't been sued. We're not engaged in a legal battle with SCO, our fight is one of perception in the public and business eyes.
The more I wonder why on earth SCO chose IBM as a target for the breach of contract suit, the more I believe they chose IBM because they knew IBM wouldn't settle. It makes for a much longer, drawn-out drama which allows plenty of time for FUD tactics, and every day increases the exposure of "tainted Linux" to more people. If SCO's tactic was to discolor the reputation of Linux and Open Source in general, which is seems clear is at least part of their plan, IBM was an ideal target because they won't settle. They'll fight.
Re:Always Wondered (Score:1, Interesting)
You've just proved his point: open source costs jobs. If the same piece of code is written dozens of times, think how many programmers get paychecks. Of course it's a very stupid to block progress and efficiency to save jobs, but it's done all the time.